Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 Next
Comments 13201 to 13250:
-
scaddenp at 06:57 AM on 1 November 2018Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Josbert, when you have model for how something works, then science works by making predictions from the model and comparing them to observations. Cooling of the stratosphere while warming of the troposphere falls straight out the radiative transfer equations (RTE). The RTE are widely used (think about why US Air Force are people that developed the MODTRAN codes) and their predictions about observed radiation whether observed from earth or satellite are matched in equisite detail. However, this is a "shut up and calculate" approach to science and doing an explanation without the math for non-specialists is challenging. I dont like them. However, I can assure you that you are in for an uphill battle convincing anyone that the RTEs are wrong without doing the math and showing that somehow your model produces even better match to observations.
-
John Hartz at 06:18 AM on 1 November 2018Republican lawmakers react to the IPCC report – ‘we have scientists’ too!
citizenschallenge: You wrote:
The entire climate science denial campaign is based on misrepresenting people's scientific work, and demonizing scientists. There is not one leading climate science communicator who hasn't suffered juvenil attacks on their character.
Riddle me this: Why are we (the children of the intellectual revolution) so impotent against that?
"We" do not have the money and power that "they" have. The unequal distribution of wealth throughout the world could very well lead to the destruction of civilization as we know it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:57 AM on 1 November 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
Wol,
Do not allow people who deliberately evade detailed discussions that would lead to a common-sense agreement, to evade discussing the details of the issues because of their sensitivity to 'Terms'.
Try the following with anyone who questions CO2 from burning fossil fuels being pollution.
Pollution is anything produced by human activity that accumulates, changing the environment it is released into, rather than being rapidly neutralized by the recycling environment. And the more serious the consquences of the pollution the more aggressively the cause of the pollution and the clean-up of the accumulation to date needs to be.
That can be understood to apply to a very broad range of items from oil spills to silt flows into streams from deforested hillsides.
By that definition, human body wastes released gradually into an ecological system that processes it is only pollution if the rate of release exceeds the ability of the ecosystem to process it without accumulation. And human CO2 respiration releases are clearly not the same as the CO2 from burning ancient buried hydrocarbons. Human exhaled CO2 was in the recycling environment before. It is part of the developed natural recycling system.
Therefore, any increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, and excluding human breathing because it does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, is "Pollution".
As for 'plant food' claims, point out that CO2 is still accumulating (a pollution) regardless of the 'term' they want to use for CO2 in the atmosphere.
Anyone who is not interested in being corrected does not deserve to be compromised with. In fact, the climate science issue has proven how damaging it can be to compromise with people whose private interests make them uninterested in being corrected. Those few scientists making up questionable claims raising doubts about climate science as a personal compromise of what they potentially better understand have been extremely damaging.
-
citizenschallenge at 01:02 AM on 1 November 2018A eulogy to Guardian's Climate Consensus - the 97%
Dana, sorry to hear that the Guardian lost interest in continuing their Science and Environment blog networks, which were dedicated to discussing our home planet, the one we depend on for everything.
It’s sad, this was a nice eulogy, more cake. What makes me profoundly sad is the placid acceptance that your write up displayed. Que Será, Será.
Seems to me the Guardian’s cancelation deserves a deeper post mortem, one that take a hard look at why the failure . . . (wish I had the time, but the workingman's whip is cracking hard these days)
-
citizenschallenge at 00:11 AM on 1 November 2018Republican lawmakers react to the IPCC report – ‘we have scientists’ too!
nigelj: "I think its probably also not good to demonise conservatives, because they will just become entrenched in their views, and ditto liberals."
I wonder, can you explain why the extreme right (which has morphed into the Republican Party) has been so successfull with their over-the-top explicit demonizing of Democrats using transparent lies and emotionalism. (ever listen to FOX news, or heartland radio talk programs?)
The entire climate science denial campaign is based on misrepresenting people's scientific work, and demonizing scientists. There is not one leading climate science communicator who hasn't suffered juvenil attacks on their character.
Riddle me this: Why are we (the children of the intellectual revolution) so impotent against that?
-
Evan at 00:07 AM on 1 November 2018A eulogy to Guardian's Climate Consensus - the 97%
Great post Dana. Thanks for your persistence and great reporting.
-
Wol at 19:54 PM on 31 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
A small point, but IMHO an important if seemingly trivial one, but I think the use of "pollution" in relation to articles on carbon emissions is counterproductive.
It raises the hackles of the denial brigade, who leap into print with irrelevancies such as "plant food" etc, steering any conversations away from the point.
"Emissions" is a much more neutral moniker
-
Josbert Lonnee at 15:55 PM on 31 October 2018Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
I'm not satisfied by this story. See also how it is debunked in the comments. Let me propose a new theory here and see how people here think it adds up. The theory is somewhat similar to the story here. Maybe I am just explaining the same, but differently. My Theory:
1) About CO2:
- When a molecule collides with any other molecule, it either keeps its kinetic energy (KE) or gets in excited state (E).
- When in (E): When it collides, the excitement might get converted to KE. Or, after a while, it turns to normal state by radiating some IR.2) About the atmosphere, for simplicity there just are:
- An upper part, Stratosphere (S), low pressure.
- A lower part, Troposphere (T), high pressure.3) About what changes:
- The concentration of CO2 increases in both layers of the atmosphere.
- All IR still travels in all directions through both layers, but the chance of hitting CO2 is increased.4) The explanation why S cools down and T warms up:
- In S the CO2 molecules have less frequent collisions than in T, just by the lower pressure.
- We have chance A: The chance that an excited (E) CO2 molecule radiates IR (chance A).
- We have chance B: The chance that an excited (E) CO2 molecule turns back to normal state by the next collision radiates IR (chance A).
- In S chance A is much higher than B.
- In T chance B is slightly higher than A.Reactions are appreciated.
Moderator Response:[DB] "See also how it is debunked in the comments"
It is not debunked in the comments.
-
nigelj at 13:26 PM on 31 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
I think Canada's climate initiative could be most accurately called a carbon levy and dividend. A levy is technically a type of tax applied for a specific narrow purpose, or a temporary tax (time limited). The fact the money is collected and then handed back doesn't really change the fact that the money is collected. Taxes are often redistributive by nature.
The term levy has a more politically saleable sound than tax, which is useful.
It is indeed a price on carbon at one level, but that is too long a term to use.
Should it be called a fee? You could argue all day about that, and what is gained? It also starts to look like blatant spin.
However I don't think its wise to get into a public debate about how the categorise canadas carbon levy and dividend, and whether its really a tax, levy or fee, because this just goes nowhere and is negative and just stupid.
I think if people try to claim its a tax to try and put it in a negative light, and argue about it, just say no its technically a levy, but openly concede it has some features of a tax. Emphasise whats really important is how it actually works and what its trying to do. This shuts debate about terminology down, and moves things on to what really matters.
-
John S at 11:03 AM on 31 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
One Planet … I too am leery of the tax reduction route to revenue neutrality no matter what economists say because, like you apparently, I see it as much too prone to manipulation by powerful interests; whereas a straight dividend, or Climate Action Incentive Payment, whatever it’s called, is more transparent, people know they are getting it and that everyone else is getting the same. It’s distributional and progressive because lower incomes spend less in total dollars so will incur less increases in living costs. With everyone getting the same payment, lower incomes net out higher. Then the economy will benefit because low incomes will spend the money faster. Certainly, the REMI report commissioned by Citizens Climate Lobby showed economic benefits from carbon fee and dividend. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/REMI-carbon-tax-report-62141.pdf
I’m going to take another shot at my point 4) since I wrote it in haste making something of a dogs-breakfast of it, mixing up different issues, and thereby failed to stress its general importance, not just to Canada.
I don’t mean to beat up on poor Dana, but he kept using “carbon tax” to refer to the Canadian federal government’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Not that he’s the only one. But in all their voluminous communications, written and oral, the feds themselves have never called it that, to the best of my knowledge (and I’ve read most of it – poor me). The legislation talks about levies and charges. And the Prime Minister and other Ministers in TV broadcasts call it pollution pricing or putting a price on pollution.
Oh yeah, but we all know it’s really a tax, right? I beg to differ. Google the meaning of the word – what comes up is “a compulsory contribution to state revenue”. The pollution price, also known as the Federal Backstop (because it applies wherever the provinces or territories have failed to enact their own carbon pricing to the federal standard) is NOT a contribution to state revenue. All the proceeds will be recycled quickly (90% to individuals as tax credits, i.e. adds to the amount a person would otherwise get back or deducts from what they owe). I’m sure many will overcome their usual procrastination and send in their tax returns as soon as they get the required documentation, which is usually in January. Thus, the carbon levies and charges will flow to us even before they have been collected (during the course of the year).
What’s in a name? Sometimes plenty. Maybe you have to be as old as I am to appreciate the significance of the following example. There was a time when news reporters refused to call the great boxer Muhammad Ali by his proper name after he converted to Islam. When sports commentator Howard Cosell introduced him by his former slave name, Ali looked hurt, asking him, “Howard, are you going to do that to me. too?”. To his credit, Cosell responded graciously “You are quite right. I apologize. Muhammad Ali is your name. You’re entitled to that.”
But in this case? If you lived in Canada, you’d know that the opposition is building up “job-killing-carbon-tax” as the issue for taking power and, as the astute political commentator Chantal Hébert concluded her column in the Hill Times today, “if next fall’s federal election does turn into a plebiscite on whether or not to try to mitigate climate change by taxing (sic – ugh!) carbon pollution, its outcome could finally put the debate to rest”. And it’s hardly going to inspire trust and confidence in carbon pricing elsewhere in the world that within the period of a little over a year three governments in Canada fell in a row, at least partly, over carbon pricing - #1 was in Ontario this summer, #2 is likely Alberta next year and the feds would be #3 if it happens.
And that would be a pity. For three decades, most economists and the odd climate scientist (James Hansen) have told us carbon pricing is the way to go. I’m sure politicians understand that but understand elections better. Now, finally, we have one willing to bite the bullet. Let it not be shot down in flames.
Will it make any difference what we call it? The feds are no doubt a lot smarter than I am and they seem to think so. And, in any case, why not call a price on pollution what it is – a price on pollution. -
One Planet Only Forever at 09:37 AM on 31 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
John S, a minor supplement to your point: "I've heard the argument that it is a tax because the government gets the money and then does what it wants with it, albeit that is to give it back. And there is a view that says it would only be revenue neutral if other taxes are reduced rather than payments made."
The Conservative/Right 'call it a tax' as a deliberate election marketing strategy. They get lots of support by claiming they will cut taxes. And their history of tax cutting is to reduce taxes on the 'builders of the economy - the richest', whether they build any sustainable improvement or not with their 'extra riches and without any need for them to prove they have developed improved conditions for the rest of the population. They market their tax reductions as a benefit for everyone, but have a history of structuring them to give more benefit to a richer person than apoorer person (just like the latest USA tax changes). So their idea of 'carbon tax' off-sets to be neutral would be collecting the carbon fee from everyone, but reducing the taxes on the richest substantially more, potentially making the richer people net-benficiaries of the program while everyone else is closer to break-even or substantially losing.
-
nigelj at 07:38 AM on 31 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
The new president of Brazil loooks like a very unfortunate choice.
"Bolsonaro has an environmental hit list that is bold and brash.
Just when the world needs the "lungs" of the world more than ever, he is planning a paved highway to run right through the Amazon rainforest. And no more will a government commitment to preserving vast areas for indigenous people be tolerated. Bolsonaro has previously said that he will "not give the Indians another inch of land".
"Because that's the Amazon's job. The rainforest absorbs approximately a quarter of the CO2 absorbed by all the land on earth. Every inch of deforestation matters. And what's the motive for deforestation in Brazil? Cattle ranching. The billions of us have created a massive consumer demand for beef so that clearing land for cattle ranching is lucrative and with Bolsonaro in charge, now unstoppable."
Etcetera. Sorry the article is a bit political.
In my view unfortunately the left leaning candidate was not the greatest, mired in corruption and poor economic management. There seems to be a peculiar lack of sensible leaders around at the present time, people with a centrist view, and a reasonably clean personal history. It's completly a mystery to me why this is so, given theres no shortage of people or politicians.
However Bolsanaro has to get his insanity past congress and the courts, and will come up against the same resistance Trump gets.
-
nigelj at 05:19 AM on 31 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
PS: I picked that map somewhat at random rather quickly just to illustrate a general point. Not sure how up to date it is - I think America is more at risk from climate change from recent information but theres still a differential with Latin America and Mexico.
-
nigelj at 05:02 AM on 31 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
It looks like South America and Mexico are highly at risk from climate change, more so than the USA according to this map. This is a population of approximately 500 million people on Americas southern border.
This source of potential climate refugees will put a lot of pressure on Americas southern border that no wall will keep out. It's going to get ugly, and this will be the price of ignoring the climate problem.
-
John S at 01:33 AM on 31 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
Thanks for the article Dana; for the sake of accuracy and not perpetuating slightly erroneous takes on this, here are a few picky corrections: 1) Saskatchewan should be coloured red - it too will get the Federal Backstop (BTW if the Alberta election next year goes the way it is looking, that province too may join the happily Backstopped), 2) the feds will pay individuals directly as credits on their tax forms (not via the provinces), - it could have been via the provinces if the latter had been co-operating, 3) the Output Based Pricing System (OBPS) I wouldn't say was similar to cap and trade - and it does not apply to all industry, only to those emitting > 50 kt/year (and optionally > 10 kt/y) in so-called Energy Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) sectors that are specifically indentified and have a standard sector emission intensity; they pay the same carbon charges as everyone else but only on emissions over their limit; their limit is their output multiplied by their standard sector emissions intensity - the only sense this is similar to cap and trade is that if they reduce emissions below their limit they get credits they can sell to those whose emissions are above their limit. 4) I know I'm fighting a losing battle on this one, but, as regards terminology, nowhere in the federal literature about this, nor in the legislation is it ever referred to as a tax - it's a price, levy , charge, fee, but not a tax and the feds now call the payments Climate Action Incentive payments, not rebates (this is even hairier, but the word rebate is also inappropriate and potentially misleading, because it implies return of some of what was paid, whereas everyone gets the same payment, but different degrees of polluters incur correspondingly different extra costs due to the carbon price). I defintely object to the word tax - its a payment from polluters to people (make the polluters pay you) channelled through government. George Shultz said "it's not a tax if the government doesn't keep the money" - I've heard the argument that it is a tax because the government gets the money and then does what it wants with it, albeit that is to give it back. And there is a view that says it would only be revenue neutral if other taxes are reduced rather than payments made. These seem like academic points for economists. I know reducing other taxes is supposedly more efficient but this way is easier to get the balance straight (BC had difficulty with that one), it's more transparent (Marc jaccard, Economics Professor at Simon Frase in BC, one of the arctitects of the revenue neutral BC carbon tax (wince) said "everyone in BC benefited, but no-one thought they had benefited") and its automtically progressive. My view on it would be stronger if they gave 100% to individuals not the 10% to hospitals etc because I understand those insitutions have difficulty passing on the costs (this is Canada remember, royal shakespearian national health service) but as Dana says very adroitly this is just the start, lets complete step 1 successfully before worrying about step 14, in which none of the MUSH sector, greenhouses, farmers, EITE industry would get free rides, the price will keep rising until we achieve net zero emission and leakage will be plugged with Border Adjustments, not OBPS - in other words Carbon Fee and Dividend. -
michael sweet at 22:39 PM on 30 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
The Guardian has an interesting article here that suggests that many of the migrants coming to the USA from Central America are climate refugees. Their farms have failed due to climate change and they have to move to be able to live.
Estimates are for there to be 150 million climate refugees by 2050. Since the affects of climate change have been bigger than expected for years, it may be sooner than that. What will the world do with 150 million refugees?? Only 1 million went to Europe in the past few years and it has caused much upheaval. When people are desperate it is very hard to stop them.
The Guardian has had a lot of interesting articles about climate change recently.
-
nigelj at 16:13 PM on 30 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
"(all tax is bad)" ....Except for taxes required for fossil fuel subsidies, updated nuclear weapons, prisons for drug users, politicians air travel, their latest BMW cars...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:35 PM on 30 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
The Right-wing political groups in Canada, who like to call themselves Conservative if they can get away with it, are delivering mass misleading marketing appeals encouraging voters to believe that a Carbon Fee or Levy or tax is another 'Bad Tax (all tax is bad)'.
CBC News item "Jason Kenney, Ontario Premier Doug Ford to hold anti-carbon tax rally in Calgary"
Many people mistakenly believe that a Carbon Fee would be liked by current day Right-wing/Conservatives. The current 'United greedy and intolerant claiming to be Right' have made-up their minds to support each other's unacceptable desires. Any conservative who votes for those United Right groups will excuse denial and dismissal of climate science even if they agree with the science and the need to correct what has developed. They are more powerfully motivated by Other unacceptable personal interests that can only be conserved or imposed on society if they vote United with people who have other unacceptable personal interests.
Negotiating with such selfishly made-up minds will just end up unacceptably compromising what undeniably needs to be done. That is why one of their main claims is that they are not being heard or compromised with. And they will avoid getting into a detailed discussion where reason would end up leading to a common sense consensus. They prefer rallies of their faithful fans who are not interested in being corrected.
Tragically, those types of political animals are likely to win the leadership of Alberta in early 2019.
This recent CBC News item includes the point that polls indicate that the NDP is trailing behind the UCP.
The popularity and profitablity of unacceptable developed activity can make it very difficult to correct, no matter how correct the science is that identifies the need for correction, or how well it is presented.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:15 AM on 30 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
The next step of improved awareness and understanding is that the need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in parallel with rapidly ending the addition of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is "What the current generation (particularly its winners/leaders) owes the future generations of humanity."
Statements like "... even though researchers haven’t yet figured out how to do so economically" imply that if the correction of something understandably harmful isn't economic (meaning profitable) it does not need to be done. That is clearly incorrect.
The most cost-effective safe and sustainable way to technologically remove CO2 should already be happening (at the expense of the people benefiting most from the burning of fossil fuels), along with the natural ways. And the efforts to develop even better technological ways to do it should be encouraged, without any hint that there is the potential for big profit to be made. A reward of $1,000,000 for each person who participates in developing 'proven to be better ways' would be enough reward.
History is full of examples of corrections being imposed on the marketplace by responsible leaders. It would be best if the responsible leaders were winners in the business community. But that is unlikely to ever be the case because free-market misleading advertising boosted capitalism abhors that type of business leadership (and encourages and rewards the other types of people).
If the system encouraged responsible leaders, those type of leaders would be the winners almost all the time, and those type of people would win often enough to have their kind of political leadership keep power (responsible Conservatives or responsible Liberals or responsible Socialists or responsible Communists or responsible Dictators or responsibly led autonomous communes ...).
-
nigelj at 06:00 AM on 30 October 2018Canada passed a carbon tax that will give most Canadians more money
Canada's carbon tax and dividend is an important policy development because taxes are a proven tool to alter behaviour, and they have stuck to the basic carbon tax and dividend policy idea rather than altering it too much, and the idea is instituted nationwide. Yes there are a couple of obvious omissions. potential criticisms, and compromises, but I think Trudeau and everyone involved deserve a lot of credit for this scheme.
It's always better to do something than nothing. Things can then evolve over time, tracking and responding to developing circumstances. However its going to have to be ramped up pretty fast given the latest concerns about warming.
It makes the USA look completely incompetent.
But Canada has to address the elephant in the room, its tar sand exports, a huge source of emissions, and the carbon tax and carbon trading scheme don't appear to impose much influence over this.
-
nigelj at 05:08 AM on 30 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
dkeierleber @5
"I think the scientific community has been screaming about the problem. What have you guys been doing?"
I didnt say they haven't been, and your tone is quite accusatory. I always encourage people to speak out.
"Nigelj's comment is especially troubling."
In what way?
"To alter our conversations in fear of what they will say would be truly cowardly."
Nobody has suggested this. Compassion fatigue is a well known fact and understandable surely? It doesn't mean we should alter our conversations, or stop speaking out. But if you dwell on a horror story 24 / 7 without swithching off to some extent it will drive you insane.
I think you are reading too much into this.
Agree with your last paragraph.
-
william5331 at 04:27 AM on 30 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #43
Let's achieve a double benefit by letting nature help us pull carbon out of the atmosphere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rZzHkpyPkc
-
dkeierleber at 01:47 AM on 30 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
@2, @3, @4, I think the scientific community has been screaming about the problem. What have you guys been doing? Nigelj's comment is especially troubling. The denailists will continue to deny, create fake temperature charts and claim it's global cooling. To alter our conversations in fear of what they will say would be truly cowardly.
It is now a sure bet that we will not keep below 1.5C of warming. Doing so would require drastic reductions in emissions (that no one is prepared to shoulder) plus developing ways to take vast amounts of existing carbon out of the atmosphere. Who here thinks our government will respond favorably to the call for emergency research in how to do that?
The frustration of watching how this has played out has already caused a lot of anxiety and driven some people over the edge. It is good to regain some perspective and remember that we must continue to function in our day-to-day lives. That does not mean anybody is giving up the fight.
-
CThompson at 16:47 PM on 29 October 2018Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
"It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"
This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.
These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently"
Only one problem, not all plant life is cycled through animal or human consumption. And, although you talk about plant respiration and proclaim that it is a very small contributor of carbon dioxide, it seems you forget that plants release carbon through decay which, when mixed with oxygen, then becomes carbon dioxide. Also, seems the issues of "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" are being confused here. Although humans may consume carbon, they produce carbon dioxide when they exhale. So, to suggest human respiration is carbon neutral is not true and to suggest plants make up for what carbon dioxide it is humans exhale doesn't seem viable either. Plants are only carbon neutral in that they take in the CO2 of which they themselves produce and convert it to O2. However, C (carbon) is produced in the form of waste, or decay. And, when that C (carbon) is exposed to oxygen, it then becomes carbon dioxide of which the plants, again, recycle and turn into oxygen and, again, into carbon in the form of waste/decay. And, the cycle goes on, and on, and on, and on. As I type this, it is autumn and I am watching the leaves fall off the trees. These leaves will decompose and, although some animal and insect life will consume some of these leaves, they will not consume all of these leaves and these leaves will decay and produce carbon. And, when said carbon is mixed with oxygen? It will become carbon dioxide. Of which, of course, these trees will use to produce new leaves when spring time arrives and will also use to continue to live throughout the rest of autumn and through winter.
-
Lewis Carlson at 13:04 PM on 29 October 2018New research, October 15-21, 2018
I don't doubt CO2 plays a significant role, yet I've heard nothing in the news of how global broadcast transmitters could play a role in climate change by stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism called Relativistic Electron Precipitation. Is anybody aware of this?
Our climate is changing as many of us are aware and many have dedicated their lives and time to doing our best to set right the challenges we face so that our children and generations ahead may have a healthy ecosystem to grow in and thrive upon. About ten years ago I dove deep into the climate change issue and learned about many facets of this astronomical challenge we face, most importantly the problem that rising CO2 levels pose from man made sources. In my process of learning about various climate forcing mechanisms I became aware of another mechanism and have wondered for years of its potential significance in climate change. Through discourse with friends and others it seems little are aware of this other factor that could potentially play a role in the dynamics we’re seeing and I’m hoping to connect with you in hopes that you or one of your colleagues may be able to shed light on these curiosities should there be more to this other climate forcing mechanism, or good reasons to dismiss it. If we truly wish to solve this incredibly difficult task it seems to me that we should leave no stone unturned. So here I am doing my part and due diligence as best I know how. I hope it is well received with an open mind and an open heart.In 2007 I learned of a phenomenon known as Relativistic Electron Precipitation - REP and that some of the leading researchers of ionospheric physics, such as Michal Parrot of CNRS France head of DEMETER micro-satellite mission and VERSIM (VLF/ELF Remote Sensing of Ionospheres and Magnetospheres 96’ - 05’) who said in a research paper that using scientific transmitters it was becoming clear that it stimulates REP and could have a potential impact on “the global warming of the earth”.
“At VLF frequencies between 10 and 20 kHz, the ground-based transmitters are used for radio-navigation and communications. Their ionospheric perturbations include: the triggering of new waves, ionospheric heating, wave-electron interactions, and particle precipitation. At HF frequencies, the broadcasting stations utilise powerful transmitters which can heat the ionosphere and change the temperature and the density. All these wave dissipations in the ionosphere could participate to the global warming of the Earth because the change in global temperature increases the number of natural lightning discharges in the atmosphere. Then the supplementary lightning discharges produce more magnetospheric whistlers which could produce heating and ionization in the lower ionosphere.
Furthermore, it is a feedback mechanism because two different processes could be involved. First, lightning is a source of NOx, and NOx affects the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere which contributes to the greenhouse effect. Second, precipitation of energetic electrons by man?made waves may trigger other lightning discharges. It explains the importance of the study of such man-made waves [7]. Ionospheric perturbations by natural geophysical activities have been made evident by two methods: the study of the electromagnetic waves, and the measurement of the electron density.” LINK
Since learning of REP and its potential role in climate change we’ve seen more and more research coming out that could potentially support the possibility that REP, along with increasing CO2, play a significant role in the climate change we are seeing. For example REP is potentially linked to the most notable region of climate warming in the entire Southern Hemisphere. “In this report we attract attention to a fact that the global maximum of the outer belt energetic electron precipitation is localized in a narrow longitudinal belt centered in the Weddell Sea i.e. in the area of climate warming in the Southern hemisphere. It was shown by several explorers that energetic resources of this electron precipitation are sufficient to change temperature regime of the stratosphere and troposphere.”
As you may well know the stratospheric ozone level is at an altitude above the carbon from man made sources and acts as a valve for UV rays coming into our atmosphere heating these greenhouse gasses. While most of the scientific community has been focused on rising CO2 levels, we’ve heard very little about how our potential use of broadcast energy on a global scale could be stimulating this REP ~ ozone depletion mechanism.
Though we hear more about the potential healing of the ozone holes in polar regions, we’ve heard little about how ozone levels over most populated areas are thinning increasing UV rays: "The potential for harm in lower latitudes may actually be worse than at the poles..The decreases in ozone are less than we saw at the poles before the Montreal Protocol was enacted, but UV radiation is more intense in these regions and more people live there."
A 2016 scientific report first coined the term Anthropogenic Space Weather and discussed the effect our output of electromagnetic energy specifically in the VLF range has been directly observed by NASA satellites to radically alter our magnetosphere creating an artificial bubble of energy around the planet capable of blocking high energy particles from space. This article frames the energetic bubble as being beneficial to blocking radiation from space, but could it also be playing a role in stimulating ozone depletion through Relativistic Electron Precipitation?
First-time evidence shows electrons precipitating or 'raining' from Earth’s magnetosphere are destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center—
In 2002 Bo Thide from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics wrote a paper titled, “Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Mission, an Elaborate Science Case” in which he put out a call for ideas regarding this REP climate forcing mechanism saying that the public should be concerned. Bo Thide is one of the world’s leading ionospheric physicists. He wrote the book on Electromagnetic Field Theory and single handedly revolutionized our understanding of ionospheric research with multi channel ionospheric probing; awarding him the Edlund Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1991. If he’s saying “the public should be concerned”.. why aren’t we even aware of this?:
So after looking at all this I’m left wondering how significant our use of broadcast energy could be in climate change given these new findings? Are NASA and other scientists looking into this possibility and do they deem it potentially significant in climate change? If not.. Why not? Perhaps there is indeed a good reason I’m not aware of.
According the the IPCC, REP was discounted as a potential player in climate change because it’s variability was too closely linked to solar proton events which are unpredictable and REP is seen as “natural”, but if we’ve been outputting EM energy into the ionosphere longer than we’ve been able to measure it, then how can we know what is or isn’t “natural”? “Nevertheless, VLF transmissions of anthropogenic origin may constitute a key space weather influence on pathways that fundamentally alter the storm-time radiation belt. Under these assumptions, it is interesting for the reader to consider what the terrestrial radiation belt environment might have been in the pre-transmitter, and pre-observation, era.”
Anthropogenic Space Weather 2016 -It has taken our scientific community a long time to realize the dire effects man made CO2 plays as a climate forcing mechanism. I don’t doubt its significance and am left wondering if it will take another 50 years before we see there’s potentially another part in the wholistic equation of our complex climate system.
If we’re truly dedicating our time, careers and lives to solving this monumental problem for generations ahead.. are we looking at the potential significance of how our global broadcast may be stimulating an ozone depletion mechanism allowing more UV rays to heat increasing levels of greenhouse gasses most of all CO2 from man made sources? How do we determine what is or isn’t worth our time when looking for answers?
I really appreciate all the energy and effort you and others are dedicating to solving the issues of climate change and appreciate your time and consideration around this letter.
Thank you sincerely, Professor Lewis Carlson PhD ~ RelativisticElectronPrecipitation@protonmail.com
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked references (URLs were breaking the page formatting). Please learn to do this yourself, thanks!
-
BaerbelW at 05:14 AM on 29 October 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018
@GeoffThomas - not sure what you mean with "received no emails from S S since this"? Also, the link to Facebook isn't working if I copy & paste it - just get a "content not available" message. Perhaps send us a message via the contact-form or directly to our contact-address?
-
william5331 at 04:53 AM on 29 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
As the Gulf stream weakens, Coriolis weakens and stops pulling the ocean away from the East Coast of the USA. Less heat is transferred northward so the waters off the southern part of the coast warm up and of course there is the overall rise in sea level. Some time in the not too distance future one almighty storm will turn Cape Cod into a sand bank devoid of trees and houses
-
david.brettell at 23:04 PM on 28 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
An honest statement but one I find to be cowardly and depressing. As a layperson with no climate qualifications I had hoped that people with the knowledge and experience you have would have been screaming what you know from the rooftops many years past, rather than going home to watch TV and eat pasties. I find it depressing to read that studying the collapse of an ice sheet is more interesting than studying a stable one. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic etc. all seem apt comparisons to me as you seem content to document the end of the world. Yes, I would say you are in denial. If the majority of climate scientists are hiding inside their academic studies, then we are all truly screwed.
-
GeoffThomas at 20:44 PM on 28 October 2018Skeptical Science at EGU 2018
I have received no emails from S S since this, but the IPPC report has come and gone, - completely ignored by the Murdoch press etc, now this, - breaks my heart, https://www.facebook.com/677890983/posts/10156823320800984/
-
curiousd at 09:19 AM on 28 October 2018Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
I am submitting a paper to the educational section of the 99th annual meeting of AMS (Phoenix). My paper would be on using transmittance values from Modtran Infrared Light in the Atmosphere to numerically solve Scwartzchild's Equation of RadiativeTtransport using a spreadsheet. (I can find no numerical example of solving S.E. in any existing textbook.) There is not an available format for that conference to include a sample table that can be translated, by a reader of my paper, to an Excel Spreadsheet . I have included such a table below. I hope this is O.K. I would refer to this table in my manuscript, if published.
Alt trans 400 derivative temp Radiance deriv x rad trapezrule
km
0 0.8842 0.0091 288.15 124.425 1.13226 1.043135
1 0.8933 0.0084 281.65 113.572 0.954 0.870094
2 0.9017 0.0076 275.15 103.445 0.78618 0.722131
3 0.9093 0.007 268.65 94.0112 0.65808 0.6018
4 0.9163 0.0064 262.15 85.2377 0.54552 0.49633
5 0.9227 0.0058 255.65 77.0931 0.44714 0.407868
6 0.9285 0.0053 249.15 69.5466 0.3686 0.33759
7 0.9338 0.0049 242.65 62.5682 0.30658 0.273968
8 0.9387 0.0043 236.15 56.1286 0.24135 0.218565
9 0.943 0.0039 229.65 50.1993 0.19578 0.176206
10 0.9469 0.0035 223.15 44.7528 0.15663 0.141936
11 0.9504 0.0032 216.65 39.7619 0.12724 0.123262
12 0.9536 0.003 216.65 39.7619 0.11929 0.119286
13 0.9566 0. 003 216.65 39.7619 0.11929 0.117298
14 0.9596 0.0029 216.65 39.7619 0.11531 0.115309
15 0.9625 .0029 216.65 39.7619 0.11531 0.115309
16 0.9654 0.0029 216.65 39.7619 0.11531 0.113321
17 0.9683 0.0028 216.65 39.7619 0.11133 0.111333
18 0.9711 0.0028 216.65 39.7619 0.11133 0.105369
19 0.9739 0.0025 216.65 39.7619 0.0994 0.097417
20 0.9764 0.0024 216.65 39.7619 0.09543 0.094291
21 0.9788 0.0023 217.65 40.5011 0.09315 0.087827
22 0.9811 0.002 218.65 41.2506 0.0825 0.07906
23 0.9831 0.0018 219.65 42.0104 0.07562 0.074173
24 0.9849 0.0017 220.65 42.7807 0.07273 0.069035
25 0.9866 0.0015 221.65 43.5615 0.06534 0.061501
26 0.9881 0.0013 222.65 44.353 0.05766 0.055923
27 0.9894 0.0012 223.65 45.1552 0.05419 0.050077
28 0.9906 0.001 224.65 45.9682 0.04597 0.04638
29 0.9916 0.001 225.65 46.7922 0.04679 0.042447
30 0.9926 0.0008 226.65 47.6272 0.0381 0.036017
31 0.9934 0.0007 227.65 48.4733 0.03393 0.03423132 0.9941 0.0007 228.65 49.3307 0.03453 0.030214
33 0.9948 0.0005 231.45 51.7918 0.0259 0.026534
34 0.9953 0.0005 234.25 54.3439 0.02717 0.027833
35 0.9958 0.0005 237.05 56.9891 0.02849 0.023207
36 0.9963 0.0003 239.85 59.7298 0.01792 0.021473
37 0.9966 0.0004 242.65 62.5682 0.02503 0.02234
38 0.997 0.0003 245.45 65.5065 0.01965 0.020108
39 0.9973 0.0003 248.25 68.5471 0.02056 0.017451
40 0.9976 0.0002 251.05 71.6924 0.01434 0.014664
41 0.9978 0.0002 253.85 74.9447 0.01499 0.015325
42 0.998 0.0002 256.65 78.3064 0.01566 0.016009
43 0.9982 0.0002 259.45 81.78 0.01636 0.012446
44 0.9984 0.0001 262.25 85.3678 0.00854 0.013176
45 0.9985 0.0002 265.05 89.0725 0.01781 0.013552
46 0.9987 1E-04 267.85 92.8964 0.00929 0.009487
47 0.9988 1E-04 270.65 96.8421 0.00968 0.009684
48 0.9989 1E-04 270.65 96.8421 0.00968 0.009684
49 0.999 1E-04 270.65 96.8421 0.00968 0.009684
50 0.9991 1E-04 270.65 96.8421 0.00968 0.009684
51 0.9992 1E-04 270.65 96.8421 0.00968 0.004842
52 0.9993 1E-04 267.85 92.8964 0 0.004454
53 0.9993 1E-04 265.05 89.0725 0.00891 0.004454
54 0.9994 0 262.25 85.3678 0 0.004089
55 0.9994 0.0001 259.45 81.78 0.00818 0.004089
56 0.9995 0 256.65 78.30 0 0.003747
57 0.9995 1E-04 253.85 74.9447 0.00749 0.003747
58 0.9996 0 251.05 71.6924 0 0
59 0.9996 0 248.25 68.5471 0 0.003254
60 0.9996 1E-04 245.05 65.0805 0.00651 0.003254
61 0.9997 0 242.65 62.5682 0 0
62 0.9997 0 239.85 59.7298 0 0
63 0.9997 0 237.05 56.9891 0 0.002717
64 0.9997 1E-04 234.25 54.3439 0.00543 0.002717
65 0.9998 0 231.45 51.7918 0 0
66 0.9998 0 228.65 49.3307 0 0
67 0.9998 0 225.85 46.9583 0 0
68 0.9998 0 223.05 44.6726 0 0
69 0.9998 0 222.25 44.0351 0 0
70 0.9998 0 217.45 40.3524 0 0 -
One Planet Only Forever at 08:48 AM on 28 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
nigelj,
The bigger issue is how easy it is to just claim that 'future generatons can adapt'. Whenever adaptation is mentioned, it is essential to understand that the adaptation is not by the people who get to benefit from creating the need to adapt. The most resistant people really like to benefit in ways that negatively affect Others. This was bluntly pointed out in the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" with the statement:
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."It is primarily the Right-wing types who would object to that being pointed out because it essentially declares the unacceptability of the results of people freer to do as they please in competitions for popularity and profitability. It points out that much of what has developed does not deserve to be conserved, it needs to be corrected.
I am starting to consider that the political divides that are developing have a powerful one-side initiation. People resisting improved awareness and understanding are 'polarizing themselves away from detailed discussions on the issues they do not want to have to change their minds about'.
That can happen on the Left or the Right. But the group primarily doing that are Conservatives and the Right, especially the new political Unions forming collectives of greedy and intolerant people (Uniting the Right) who will vote to support each others unacceptable interests, because without uniting they would have little chance of political or popular success. They are United against the improving understanding of climate science (and many other developed improved understandings of the brilliant diversity of humanity that should be appreciated and accepted as they are, rather than being attacked for being "those Others").
It is primarily Right-wing Conservatives who do not want to get along with Others through discussions that would lead to common sense improved understanding, because they 'accurately' sense that doing so is likely to require them to change their minds, and Conservatives are not very willing to do that.
-
Trevor_S at 08:12 AM on 28 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
I understand that's how you cope but that isn't a particularly goid way of dealing with it. It can lead to depression or worse.
The best curative is action, making sure you aren't making the problem worse, something Kevin Anderson remarks on (climate scientists being some of the worst offendors). While you can't be responsible for everything, you are responsible for your own actions and for how you vote. Another example is Peter Kalmus.
The denial you mention is impactory denial, it's far more insidious then science denial. Those that understate the issue, the likey outcomes and not doing anything...
This reminds me somewhat of the issue of the recent Royal Commision into child sexual abuse that occurred in Australia. What's worse, the perpetrators, or those who remained quiet and in denial ? I wonder what will happen if we have a royal commission into carbon emissions ? After all, as you point out the outcomes of our impacatory denial are far worse, possible destruction of the biosphere.
-
nigelj at 05:44 AM on 28 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #43
Great article full of good people. You can almost see the cogs turning in their minds: agw climate change equals more taxes (eg a carbon tax), don't like taxes, better to just adapt to climate change and not try and cut emissions. It's understandable anyone could empathise.
However relying purely on adaptation will be very costly in the long run. Prevention is better than cure, but its a hard message to sell, yet its the message we must sell much better.
I think the culture wars and political tribalism between conservatives and liberals is getting dangerous and entrenched. The sad thing is all attention has now focussed on immigration, taxes gun rights and a few hot button issues, and the environment has been pushed into the background, however looming environmental disaster will make many of the other issues and arguments seem trivial.
America is heading towards civil war if this continues. I have said it before and now someone else is here.
-
Truth16984 at 05:22 AM on 27 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #40
It's not hard to become a "denier" when the only facts shown are Anthropologic climate change ! There is much scientific data outside the elite scientific agenda of human induced change ! But alas that is never or quickly dismissed by the same obove mentioned group. This science is available to any who wish to read the truth about past pole shifts. Soooo, that is why myself and many like me discount your claims and dismiss them as you do ours.....
Moderator Response:[DB] This is a science- and evidence-based forum. While you are welcome to your own opinions, any contentions expressed by participants that fall well outside accepted science must therefore be accompanied by credible evidence, typically in the form of published research appearing in peer-reviewed credible journals. So that burden falls largely upon you, in this instance.
For example, while the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to the mass redistribution of water around the Earth from land-based ice sheet losses. This is a normal response.The net change in the position of the Earth's rotational axis is about 37 feet. The largest annual change is about 7 inches.
If you move over 37 feet, the climate doesn't change. It changes even less per year if you only move 7 inches.
"The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record."
And
"The science shows that magnetic pole reversal is – in terms of geologic time scales – a common occurrence that happens gradually over millennia. While the conditions that cause polarity reversals are not entirely predictable – the north pole's movement could subtly change direction, for instance – there is nothing in the millions of years of geologic record to suggest that any of the 2012 doomsday scenarios connected to a pole reversal should be taken seriously."
"What would happen if the magnetic field of the Earth suddenly changed?
Magnetic field wandering would let the aurora borealis occur at any latitude, but other than that there would be no noticeable effects other than changes in the amount of cosmic rays that penetrate to the ground. Even this effect is minimal because we can visit the Arctic and Antarctic and only receive a slight increase in cosmic rays. So long as the strength of the field remains high during this field wandering event, the effects should be pretty benign."
-
nigelj at 05:00 AM on 26 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #42
Scaddenp, yes I agree it's a totally misleading headline. I have noticed a lot of misleading headlines in the Herald lately, and have formally complained but have not received a response.
I have also complained about misleading and biased articles by Roughan and Hosking and one article by the climate guy De Freitas, and although I received predictable, dismissive, replies it was the last article by De Freitas they ever published and I noticed an improvement in how articles were written. The Herald probably hate me, but I don't care, someone had to say something because it was getting out of control.
-
nigelj at 04:52 AM on 26 October 2018Blood coal: Ireland’s dirty secret
Good article, fracking is no answer to climate change. But Ireland does appear to have a modest carbon tax here and here.
-
SirCharles at 01:29 AM on 26 October 20181.5 Degree Climate Limit: Small Number; Huge Consequences
https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html
-
curiousd at 19:04 PM on 25 October 2018Newcomers, Start Here
Hi,
Been a while since I posted here. I recall there used to be a way to make a table or graph and post it so there was a URL associated with the table or graph. Of course I would be willing to pay to have this done.
Ant suggestions?
Moderator Response:[DB] You will need to use an image hosting service or on a website that allows the formation of a dedicated URL.
[PS] Plenty of free image hosting services out there (eg tinypic) Just dont forget to limit image width to 500. More detail at bottom of the comments policy.
-
scaddenp at 08:14 AM on 25 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #42
That is a really misleading headline. The hum is function of winds over the ice shelf. Whether monitoring the hum will tell you anything interesting about how the shelf changes as the climate warms is conjecture at this stage. The instruments measuring the physical properties of the shelf (from which you can derive the hum) most certainly will tell you something interesting.
-
nigelj at 06:01 AM on 25 October 20182018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #42
Listen: Antarctic ice shelf's 'hum' warns of climate change.
-
nigelj at 05:20 AM on 25 October 2018Some of the countries leading on climate change might surprise you
One thing is Iran is on the Persian Gulf, so as a last resort desalinisation would be an option. The inland ex soviet block countries adjacent to Iran probably have the bleakest future.
-
MA Rodger at 04:19 AM on 25 October 2018It hasn't warmed since 1998
andyred3D @404,
There are big amounts of energy required to melt Arctic Sea Ice each spring/summer, also the amount released with the winter freeze-up. Of course this cycle has been happening for millenia and involve lots of energy. So such energy fluxes are already part of global climate and even then they fall far short (perhaps just 10%) of that which would be released by global surface temperatures falling modestly behind the long-term upward trend. If you are interested, numbers can be presented but they are a mite too involved to pop into the thread without an audience.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:16 AM on 25 October 2018Geologists and climate change denial
ad1mt,
Reasoned discussion is not possible with people who argue in bad faith. There was a contributor on this site who participated for some time and claimed he was a retired lawyer for Cabadian fossil fuel interests. His approach to the evidence was that of a lawyer; it included minimizing what was not going his preferred direction, repeatedly re-using arguments that had been shown to have no validity, establishing premises as facts when they weren't, etc, etc. It is impossible to read his posts over time and not come to the conclusion that he was arguing in bad faith.
I strongly object to the use of the word "agnostic", which suggests that this is all matter of faith. There is enough scientific knowledge available on the subject to not have to rely on faith. The only way one can fall back on faith is if they are unable to think quantitatively or so deep in denial that all rational thought is abandoned. If any debate is to be had, it is not about the reality of what is happening; that is the terrain for pseudo debates, indulging those who are incompetent, uninformed, misinformed, overwhelmed by emotional attachment to ideology, or simply dishonest.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:53 AM on 25 October 2018Geologists and climate change denial
ad1mt@105,
My thoughts regarding your points:
1. Reasoned discussion leads to common understanding when there is substantial amounts of evidence available. The fundamentals of climate science identifying the need for the current generation to rapidly end the burning of fossil fuels, and even to start unprofitably and safely removing CO2 from the atmosphere, is not debatable. It hasn't been debatable for a very long time (decades). The debates need to be about why some leaders still try to claim that it, or the need to rapidly unprofitably and unpopularly correct the unacceptable activity that has developed, should be debated.
2. The human impact that has rapidly increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm is not small. And much of the new Carbon imposed on the environment has been harmfully absorbed into the oceans (or there would be even more still in the atmosphere), significantly rapidly changing the ocean acidity. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere would not reverse the ocean chemistry changes. And it is unacceptable to excuse making a problem for future generations by claiming that they will develop the ability to fix it, or can adapt to the harsh new climate realities.
3. The natural changes of the planet are not the issue. The rapid changes created by human activity are the issue.
4. The fossil fuels already burned up could have been very helpful in the future. A controlled future burning could have moderated a natural cooling period. It is also possible that a massive rapid burning could help mitigate the chilling results of an asteroid impact (a small enough one to dust up the atmosphere without massive damage done).
5. The climate scientists' warnings are becoming 'more alarming' because they never were mistaken. People preferring leaders who told them what they wanted to believe led to winners in popularity and profitability competitions that have continued to make the problem worse.
Science is about awareness and understanding, not beliefs. People either want to understand it or want to doubt it. You appear to want to understand. Others want to doubt, and repeatedly debating with a deliberate doubter is a waste of time.
-
ad1mt at 21:50 PM on 24 October 2018Geologists and climate change denial
I have had several thoughts about the climate change issue:
1. The shutting down of debate is counterproductive; it does nothing to convince deniers & possibly swings abstainers to the denial side. Reasoned discussion is essential, even if it does become tiresome repeating the same points over & over.
2. If a small human-made change to climate can be amplified to produce a large effect, then that implies that a small reverse adjustment could also easily fix the climate later.
3. The lack of any clear explanation of how the massive climate changes of the last 100 million years fits with recent climate history. This suggests we're doomed anyway within the next 1000-2000 years when the next ice-age kicks-in.
4. If we are about enter a new ice-age within the next 500-2000 years... is it possible that human-made global warming could be used to stabilise global climate to prevent a new ice-age from happening at all?
5. The more alarming the climate scientists warnings become, the more I hope they are mistaken, because I believe economic/political forces will prevent any effective action until it is too late.
I'm genuinely interested to hear peoples responses to my points above.
PS - I'm not a climate change denier, or even a skeptic, more of a climate agnostic... :)
-
nigelj at 05:21 AM on 24 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
Excellent sentiments. However the article opens with "I’m a climate scientist, and I don’t worry about climate change very much". I understand this is intended to be sort of catchy and provocative, but I think this is an unfortunate opening line that detracts. Plenty of people will read this and get the message that if climate scientists dont worry why should anyone?
And plenty of people won't bother to read past the first paragraph, but those that do will still have the opening line indelibly etched in their mind, despite all the statements in the rest of the article that explains what is really meant.
Sorry for the nit pick but communications skills are really important.
But I agree completely we have to have coping mechanisms and escapes to deal with potentially destructive pehomena, or we get depressed and overwhelmed. As long as such mechanisms are not used to deny the problem, because I think some of this goes on with some people.
I recommend an excellent and amusing but scholarly little book: "Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind" by Y N Harari. The chapter on the evolution of gossip and play is interesting and relevant to how we cope with things.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 24 October 20181.5 Degree Climate Limit: Small Number; Huge Consequences
nigelj,
I agree about being careful what points get raised with what type of people.
But I believe it is important for everyone who tries to correct minds regarding climate science to understand the type of developed mind they may be dealing with.
I hope that what I present about the way the current day Right has become 'a gathering collective of greedy people and intolerant people' helps people understand why it is possible for many Republican voters to claim that they understand and support the need for Climate Action, yet continue to vote for representatives who are deliberately harmful to achieving the required climate action corrections of what has developed, including voting against a Carbon Fee policy.
Some of those who understand the climate science are choosing to be more concerned about being anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, anti-'helping the less fortunate in their own or other nations' (or pro-gun), than they are about climate science based correction of what has developed (some even claim that environmental protection and help for the less fortunate can only happen if economic pursuits harmful to the environment or unfair to less fortunate people are allowed). And the greedy ones who are opposed to the 'undeniable climate science based required corrections of what has developed' may not agree with those other 'anti-actions', but they are OK with supporting them as long as Standing United with those other type of people will help them win the power to protect their unjustified wealth and unjust pursuits of more undeserved wealth and enjoyment.
Every conservative who claims to accept climate science needs to be encouraged to stop supporting the party they developed a liking to support, regardless of the private interest that tempted them to support it. It should be easy for them to understand that the unacceptability of the Party Position regarding climate science extend to the unacceptability of many of the other Party policies. A reluctance to understand that would indicate the person you are dealing with is not likely to change their mind, no matter how much information you present to them. That type of person has become very determined to want their private interest, been encourage to become very selfish, will powerfully resist changing their mind. That is why scientists are generally correct to not be interviewed by, or participate in discussions on, media that has a recent history of significant climate science dismissal or denial. That media will likely try to manpulate the message to suit the pleasure of their biased audience as much as they can get away with.
-
Evan at 02:20 AM on 24 October 2018Climate change and compassion fatigue
Nice statement of how we deal with such problems.
There is value in each day we live, with each person we reach, and each positive action we can squeeze out of life. This keeps me going.
-
Evan at 23:46 PM on 23 October 2018Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans
I would prefer to see the title of this post be "Trump says scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans," rather than the word "thinks". To use the word "thinks" implies that he really believes that. I would sooner accept that many politicians, including Trump, understand there is a consensus but find it to their advantage to say the opposite. Accepting the ideas of GW and CC requires accepting the science of GW and CC. Accepting that there is a consensus among scientists that GW and CC is real and that we are the problem only requires the skill of bean counting, or rather, reading the reports of other bean counters (no insults intended).
-
nigelj at 05:15 AM on 23 October 2018Trump thinks scientists are split on climate change. So do most Americans
I've followed the climate issue for over 20 years, just out of general interest. I live in New Zealand, and I don't recall ever seeing an article in our two main local newspapers, or on radio or television talking about the consensus studies, or even just the IPCC process. I believe its because the general daily / weekly media would prefer to give the impression theres still a "debate" so they can keep a sense of controversy alive, because this gets people buying their newspapers. So their motive is driven my wanting popularity and profits above all else.
The media are letting humanity down, with the exception of websites like this. Climate change is no joke and the media have a duty to communicate the facts, including the consenus studies. Governments need to ensure this happens and put some pressure on the media, but stopping short of dictating exact content of course. The issue is too important to leave to the discretion of the media.
Prev 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 Next
